| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
 Posted - 24 Oct 2014 : 06:08:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by Xal Valzar
answer me one thing, why is it the heros problem if some orc women are there to? or some kids?
what would he gain from sparring them?
Answer me this, why would a hero need to kill kids or not combatant when they don't pose a threat and could be -to an extent- ''victims'' of their context? He might even offer them a second opportunity and gain potential allies. But if you kill when there's no need to, then it's just unnecessary cruelty and bloodshed, and you're just a murderer.
Heroes are not exclusively about personal gain, otherwise you are not a hero, just some guy who goes around looking for profit (i.e one among the many).
quote:
secondly if the orc choose to live his life like that then he would be better of dead to begin with. Hes the one that choose to live under evil, would he have any self esteem he would either rebel, and maybe die, then he would be an ally. however as long as he is there he has no right to his own life.
people need to live up to the consequences of their actions. it doesnt matter if they had no other choice, which they obviously do have, they pay for what choice they made. treat them as anything less and they are not humane and one would have no qualms by killing them.
You oversimplify things to a point where they look trivial. You flat out ignored my point, i.e. often their context get in the way, in the sense that they have little to no concrete alternative to choose without highly risking to lose their life or live in extremely hard conditions. You may call them ''coward'' for being fearful of this, but -you know- that would cover most mankind. Then why should you kill them, why -once defeated- not work a truce or something (oh wait, you seem to be ok with killing civilians in RW wars as well)? What does make you think that you can decide who deserves to live or die?
quote:
the reality is hard, its not sugar coated to fit what you belive to be right and kind. some people want to hurt you, thell enjoy watching you get hurt and might make a game out of it. those people deserve to die. some people wont be so enntusiastic but they will sanction that by not doing anything. the chocie to not do anytihng is a chocie by itself. in this sense a coward does not deserve to live. life belongs to those willing to fight for it. those who dont fight for it forfeit the right to their own life.
And where did I say that you shouldn't defend yourself from such people? Life is not as trivial as you make it seem either. About the ''non enthusiasts'' and why they aren't ''evil'', I've adressed that point elsewhere in this post.
quote:
im not saying kill a child on sight, unless that helps you defeat the enemy. if u see a child and it doesnt change anything let him go. but if u have a plan and it involves killing the child it still is the agressors fault. poor kid. though the one who intitated the attack is to blame.
If you go ahead and nuke a whole people then you are to blame as well for the deaths of innocents.
quote:
the best concertizing of this is the movie the Lone Survivor.
and if there are soldiers who want to live in peace why are they taking arms? even if they do have wishes of peace, though i dont know how would one know that sicne there actiosn suggest other wise, they still choose to fight and deserve to be killed. also if most people want peace why do they not fight agianst a situation that would put them in war? the idea of the "peaceful majority" is more fitted to be called the "indiffrent majority". ad if your indiffrent to your life i see no moral problem of killing you to begin with. as i said, life belongs to those who fight for life.
Ever heard of conscription? Or people joining the military for a living? Ever heard of people working because they need to eat? Ever heard of decisions being enforced with terror and threats of death? There are various reasons why the peaceful people are not indifferent, rather not able/not organized enough/too fearful or whatever to stop the war.
Let me put it this way. Your country randomly decides to go to war trying to invade one of its neighbours and pillage their lands. Your government starts executing or silencing anyone who opposes thier decision. Your family or people you hold dear don't want the war, but they keep doing their work anyway because they need to survive. You defiantly oppose the evil gov, but most people are too fearful to do that and you can't manage to convince your family to join you. Then the war ends, your country loses, enemy soldiers come in and start killing everyone, because they're obviously evil, and wrong and not deserving to live, ignoring your dear ones. Does this right to you? Because it's what you are describing.
quote:
if you would notice anything from history war was always wagered by one side wanting to loot from the other side and one side either wanting to loot back or wanting to retaliate. War is made by the desire to steal from people and sustain ones self by other peoples effort. war is the realm of the un-productive. in that sense that is concrete intrest but its stem is much more abstract. it means that one has no way to produce and most loot from others. a person like that does not gain power to attack a nation by good hard working people.
Some wars are. Many are simply fought for the material interest of very few people, for conquest, for political influence and so on.
quote:
and that qoute is sick
You are basically saying that genocide is ok, that is sick.
quote:
, its saying that the man who risks his life to safeguard America or Britain or France is as evil as the vile japanese or german warmongers. by getting the whtie and the black in the same laundry machine he has not just blackned the white but also whitned the black. extoling mindless Nazi soldiers with the British soldiers that fought them and probably saved the life of his loved ones in Switzerland.
But they commit the same kind of atrocities. Are those soldiers good when they go bomb houses and cities killing thousands of people -including children-? How is that related to ''protecting'' their dears?
And I don't know why you have problems with that. If we had to go with your logic, all warriors, soldiers and so on would be evil, since they all choose to be soldiers and in simply doing so they allow for wars and aggression to toher countries -i.e. evil- to exist (because if they all stopped doing so, no one would be there to fight wars).
quote:
what he advocates for is to send the innocnce on the good side to safe guard the 'innocent' on the bad side. first there are no innocent on an evil side, if they were they would be an opposition and your ally. if they stand idly and support the war machine by working as factory hands or just giving them there money via taxes or even standing idle then they are just as deserving of death as the men with guns.
No what he asks is to stop the goddamned wars. He's asking to all people who support war to start using their head and punch politicians in the face when they say ''hey lets play war''-
Dude, you do realize that if what you said was true, for every war the ''evil'' side would have to be exterminated? Do you realize that -again- by your logic, most of humanity should be exterminated because at one of point of history most countries -supported by their population- has been ''evil'' (most Europe in the colonial age, for example)? Do you realize to be advocating genocide?
There are no innocent on ''evil'' side. That's right because -if you exclude fanatics and politicians- there's no truly evil side at all, for reasons already stated.
Also, you really think that soldiers who go to ''free'' other countries from oppression are actually there to aid them? Every faction commits atrocities during war, every faction goes after their interest during war (unless you are willing to commend stuff like pillaging and rape committed by the ''good'' side because their victims are on the opposite side and therefore ''evil'' and non-human  )
quote:
the point is war requires you to kill not just people with weapons in their hands. if you can not do that then you are a coward and should not go adventuring to begin with.
And again, why does it require you to kill harmless people, and adventuring has never been about going to war 
quote:
one other reason FR has declined is the lack of moral certanty and mercy to the evil that many adventurers posses.
Untrue. One of the reasons FR has declined is that they nuked the hell out of it. Complex morals is actually something that people find interesting nowadays, AFAIK. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 24 Oct 2014 07:00:14 |
 |
|
|
Xal Valzar
Learned Scribe
Argentina
214 Posts |
Posted - 24 Oct 2014 : 07:03:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Xal Valzar
Writers and players need to 'man up' and face the truth that some people need a killing because of thier actions. Thats it.
Orcs, and any sentient creature, is not born one way or the other. If so it is not thinking but acting by instinct. There is no evidence to suggest that Orcs act in ways that are made by instinct. Some Orcs, and indeed many, deserve to die because they have choosen to live by taking from and killing other people. If anyone feels bad for killing an orc that was about to kill or steal from him he does not deserve to live.
If some women or even non-agresive people die that completly fine. supporting evil is as bad as being the one fighting on the field. Any children that die would be on the fualt of the agressor.
people should stop having a weak soul (pusillanimous in Latin, or p-u-s-s -y in its english adaptation(didnt know that fact did u?)) and face up that some people need a killing for their actions and that if other poeple, even babies, need to die because of that then its not thier problem. they did not sign up to be raided and its the agressors fualt for starting the fight.
its the moral idea of altruims that makes others ones responsibilty even when it is potentaily hurtful to ones self. an idea that leads to your death and to seeing your life 2nd place. an idea that is supposed to make u impotent to act and defend your life, one fitting for a slave.
if u want a concrete example look at The Allies vs Nazi Germany in WW2. Or my homeland of Israel today.
The 'cozy' feeling of mercy for your enemies will get my family and loved ones killed both in the past and in the present and future.
You really need to stop bringing real world examples into every discussion. This is a Realms board, and bringing real world stuff in can cause a lot of issues. 
then how can u prove something, with non-real world examples? well what are those? or would i make up a scenario where it is clear that everything is the real world example and go agian and that would be better?
secondly lets face it, every fantasy is inspired and guided by real life occurrences. |
Knowledge is Power |
|
|
|
Fellfire
Master of Realmslore
1965 Posts |
Posted - 24 Oct 2014 : 07:10:14
|
| Drats. I thought we put this nuisance in the rear-view. |
Misanthorpe
Love is a lie. Only hate endures. Light is blinding. Only in darkness do we see clearly.
"Oh, you think darkness is your ally? You merely adopted the dark. I was born in it, molded by it. I didn't see the light until I was already a man, by then it was nothing to me but.. blinding. The shadows betray you because they belong to me." - Bane The Dark Knight Rises
Green Dragonscale Dice Bag by Crystalsidyll - check it out
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 24 Oct 2014 : 07:21:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by Xal Valzar
Then how can u prove something, with non-real world examples?
The Forgotten Realms is a fantasy setting, with its own rules, mores, social customs and history.
It's make believe by definition.
That make believe world is why we're here and it's what we want to talk about on this forum space.
More to the point: the Realms has grown and expanded on its own, in a lot of ways without real world influence or inspiration.
The discussions here are not meant to be endless logic contests where only one person can be right and everyone else is wrong. That kind of juvenile thinking still crops up from time to time, even among the moderators, but for the most part people share ideas without competing to prove each other wrong.
If that's not your cup of tea, that's fine. But if you want to keep posting here without being regarded as a troll or a jerk, then you need to back off, stop arguing and start paying attention to other points of view, even if you disagree with them. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
|
|
|
Xal Valzar
Learned Scribe
Argentina
214 Posts |
Posted - 24 Oct 2014 : 07:44:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
[quote]Originally posted by Xal Valzar
Answer me this, why would a hero need to kill kids or not combatant when they don't pose a threat and could be -to an extent- ''victims'' of their context? He might even offer them a second opportunity and gain potential allies. But if you kill when there's no need to, then it's just unnecessary cruelty and bloodshed, and you're just a murderer.
Heroes are not exclusively about personal gain, otherwise you are not a hero, just some guy who goes around looking for profit (i.e one among the many).
sometimes you can gain an ally from sparing a kid, if the evidence of his actions point to it. though recrutiment is very rare. most times having him alive is a liabilty and you ought to take as little risks as you can. so even if there is a doubt that he might go and run for help then u should kill him, unless you dont value ur own life.
hahaha i would love to see the guy who goes around not looking for profit and call him self a hero. "im doing something that is not good for me", that means he devotes his time to the worhtless. it can be helping demons, that seems very not good for him. also what an insult to people to be helped for no good reason. you would have to go to the people you saved and tell them "i didnt do it because i thought you were good but because i would not gain anything out of it. you have no good qualties so i would not gain any pride from it."
thats the funniest and saddest thing ive heard.
its finding a profit that makes you a hero, the greater the cash-out the greater a hero you are. Nikola Tesla and Edison are heroes. mother Tersa is villain at worst and a no body at best.
You oversimplify things to a point where they look trivial. You flat out ignored my point, i.e. often their context get in the way, in the sense that they have little to no concrete alternative to choose without highly risking to lose their life or live in extremely hard conditions. You may call them ''coward'' for being fearful of this, but -you know- that would cover most mankind. Then why should you kill them, why -once defeated- not work a truce or something (oh wait, you seem to be ok with killing civilians in RW wars as well)? What does make you think that you can decide who deserves to live or die?
sadly most mankind are cowards, if many of mankind wants to steal from me i wouldnt hesitate to attack them if i could. i decide who lives and dies, its my judgement, its not divine nor social, its simply true as my judgement of the laws of nature. what makes me think it is that i think.
And where did I say that you shouldn't defend yourself from such people? Life is not as trivial as you make it seem either. About the ''non enthusiasts'' and why they aren't ''evil'', I've adressed that point elsewhere in this post.
if the bad guys, who lets say are the AZAG use 'innocent' people as their human shields then u gotta attack the shields. i told you already, not making a choice is itself a choice, if you care to be in the hands of murderours you count already as dead.
If you go ahead and nuke a whole people then you are to blame as well for the deaths of innocents.
no im not, the deaths of people who were nuked are the faults of the leaders who initiated that attack, and its the peoples fault as well for sanctioning such a leader. they knew that destruction is the only path for thier fates when such a man was in power. they met it.
im not to blame it was just like self defense against an armed assailant is. and if someone gets hurt its his fault as well.
the man who initiates force is always the one to blame.
Ever heard of conscription? Or people joining the military for a living? Ever heard of people working because they need to eat? Ever heard of decisions being enforced with terror and threats of death? There are various reasons why the peaceful people are not indifferent, rather not able/not organized enough/too fearful or whatever to stop the war.
if u care to live just for food then u are not a man, u are a stomach and a mouth and an anus. a man is not a thing that eats, a thing that drinks. a man is a creature that thinks, a creature that has honor and integrity, if you choose your stomach over your dignity then don't call yourself man. if you choose anything over your honor you don't deserve to live. and you are not alive qua man as it is, you are alive as a mouth, stomach and anus.
again if your a coward you do not deserve to live. life requires one to take a step of action to stay in his nature, if you forfeit that effort to to stay within that nature you forfeited the right to your life. if you are a coward to that extent you dont deserve to live.
Let me put it this way. Your country randomly decides to go to war trying to invade one of its neighbours and pillage their lands. Your government starts executing or silencing anyone who opposes thier decision. Your family or people you hold dear don't want the war, but they keep doing their work anyway because they need to survive. You defiantly oppose the evil gov, but most people are too fearful to do that and you can't manage to convince your family to join you. Then the war ends, your country loses, enemy soldiers come in and start killing everyone, because they're obviously evil, and wrong and not deserving to live, ignoring your dear ones. Does this right to you? Because it's what you are describing.
my "dear" ones are not dear to me anymore if they choose to defualt by so much. secondly im not sure i would want to stay alive if i would have let that happen. if it were me i would create an underground and fight, ally with the invaders the moment they are there and start delivering justice. heck i might kill my former dear ones myself. actions have consequences. one does not treat his life as if it was apart from good and evil and stay alive.
Some wars are. Many are simply fought for the material interest of very few people, for conquest, for political influence and so on.
not some, all wars. give me one war that the prosperous, also economically freer, country waged against a poorer country and gained any value from it?
the modern wars where one goes to 'liberate' ones enemies are under the catagory of perversions of self defence.
[quote]and that qoute is sick
You are basically saying that genocide is ok, that is sick.
genocide of the evil is sometimes neccasary. what can you do if some people choose to side with evil.
But they commit the same kind of atrocities. Are those soldiers good when they go bomb houses and cities killing thousands of people -including children-? How is that related to ''protecting'' their dears?
yep there good, for one reason. they didnt start it. heck if it has any moral attack on the enemy thats good to start with, secondly usually you attack factory cities and supply places.
And I don't know why you have problems with that. If we had to go with your logic, all warriors, soldiers and so on would be evil, since they all choose to be soldiers and in simply doing so they allow for wars and aggression to toher countries -i.e. evil- to exist (because if they all stopped doing so, no one would be there to fight wars).
nope, some people will always start wars. also some soldiers decide to protect freedom and the pursuit of hapiness. some do it because its for the class or the race, they both think its good. though only one is right that it is good.
No what he asks is to stop the goddamned wars. He's asking to all people who support war to start using their head and punch politicians in the face when they say ''hey lets play war''-
as long as some men belive that it is correct to take from some then there will always be wars. as long as free man value their freedom those wars will be won so that the good may win.
Dude, you do realize that if what you said was true, for every war the ''evil'' side would have to be exterminated? Do you realize that -again- by your logic, most of humanity should be exterminated because at one of point of history most countries -supported by their population- has been ''evil'' (most Europe in the colonial age, for example)? Do you realize to be advocating genocide?
Europe colonial age was not all wars though, its complex but europe was mostly in the right since it brought more rights to its subjects then the regime before.
im not saying that for some odd reason it passes on 'in the blood' that would be ridicolous. what does one mans action have to do with the charcter of his great-great-grandson?
There are no innocent on ''evil'' side. That's right because -if you exclude fanatics and politicians- there's no truly evil side at all, for reasons already stated.
also most wars ended 'well' Nazi Germany fell, sadly USSR was still around.
Also, you really think that soldiers who go to ''free'' other countries from oppression are actually there to aid them? Every faction commits atrocities during war, every faction goes after their interest during war (unless you are willing to commend stuff like pillaging and rape committed by the ''good'' side because their victims are on the opposite side and therefore ''evil'' and non-human )
well u dont gain anything from raping them, i mean if you HAVE to it might be beneficial. but that would only come to be in the long run. and wars ought to be quick, ruthless and decisive.
well ones factions intrest is to loot and the other is either to loot back, in which case the both be damned. but this is about where one wants to loot and pillage the other and the other wants to defend itself.
Look at EMOR and EGAHTRAC. EMOR fought 3 wars and on the 1st did not destroy everything, on the second they won and quickly after they demolished it. EGAHTRAC never bothered them agian.
And again, why does it require you to kill harmless people, and adventuring has never been about going to war
the fact is u dont know who is harmless, and one wrong move can get you killed. this applies to any conflict where its a matter of life and death. some adventures are war, but all adventures require that kind of attitude since ur usually not fighting non-sentient beings.
Untrue. One of the reasons FR has declined is that they nuked the hell out of it. Complex morals is actually something that people find interesting nowadays, AFAIK.
it was nuked the hell because people have not thought how to protect themselves on the long run. if people were not to give gods powers by worshiping them that might have stopped a lot of things. they needed to ask themselves "should i give power to these people?" also the 'worship of mystra' through magic.
if people were to look for independent things to the Weave or Shadow Weave and be completely independent in their craft, or just go to other sciences then the spellplauge wont have almost any effect.
but they didnt, and its what they should do now.
dont worry, I, and my charcter, have a plan to set things straight. |
Knowledge is Power |
|
|
|
LordofBones
Master of Realmslore
1477 Posts |
Posted - 24 Oct 2014 : 09:49:53
|
| Somehow, this always comes back to Xal's character for some reason. |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 24 Oct 2014 : 10:32:27
|
@Xal.
quote:
its finding a profit that makes you a hero, the greater the cash-out the greater a hero you are. Nikola Tesla and Edison are heroes. mother Tersa is villain at worst and a no body at best.
Ok. That would be a fitting description for a successful merchant. Not all heroes are merchant, not all merchants are heroes (many of them can be backstabbers or opportunists). People like Tesla are surely heroes in a sense, but -for example- who would you call ''heroes'', Doctors without Borders who go help people directly on the field, or the pharmaceutical company which is only interested in profit (and sometimes overprices its medicines and may even be accused to spread some illnesses for easy sales)?
Also ''u are not a man, u are a stomach and a mouth and an anus''. The funny part is that your concept of hero fits quite nicely this definition, being only out there after mere profit, which is basically the same thing as ''food'', intended in a wider sense.
Besides, you didn't even answer my question. Why would you need to kill people who are not a threat? For some retarded feel of self-righteous justice? Again, unnecessary killing is just pointless violence, an ''evil'' act, if you want to put it in such terms.
The argument of ''omg he started first'' doesn't allow for pointless massacre of people to be right, it allows for self defense to be right. Going to another country and exterminating everyone is far more than self defense. Also, keep in mind that once a war starts, even the soldiers on the aggressor's side will be fighting to protect their dears among the other things and that the ones on the ''defending'' side will be likely fighting to pillage the agressors back- At the end of the day, all soldiers are about the same.
But I won't be discussing concepts like the value of people's lives with you, since you think that genocide is ok, that civilians are the ''evil'' and must be exterminated, when on enemy side and since you wouldn't care about your dear ones being randomly killed ''for justice'' if they acted out of fear. You also aren't giving any argument beyond ''they are not men, they are evil, they don't deserve to live'' and repeating them over and over as absolute facts, which they are not, as most people will tell you. You think reality is extremely simple, to the point of triviality, and judge facts and people while ignoring their context, which is extremely important, even if you think otherwise. I don't believe that continuing our argument on this particular topic would lead to anything productive.
quote:
And I don't know why you have problems with that. If we had to go with your logic, all warriors, soldiers and so on would be evil, since they all choose to be soldiers and in simply doing so they allow for wars and aggression to toher countries -i.e. evil- to exist (because if they all stopped doing so, no one would be there to fight wars).
nope, some people will always start wars. also some soldiers decide to protect freedom and the pursuit of hapiness. some do it because its for the class or the race, they both think its good. though only one is right that it is good.
Tell me, how do you fight war without armies? If soldiers refused to be soldiers, wars would be neglectable in their influence. Therefore soldiers are ''not men, evil, and deserving to be exterminated'' because they bend to evil, according to your logic. That's to show how irrational your thinking is.
quote:
not some, all wars. give me one war that the prosperous, also economically freer, country waged against a poorer country and gained any value from it?
the modern wars where one goes to 'liberate' ones enemies are under the catagory of perversions of self defence.
Conquest wars started by rather prosperous empires/countries? Colonialism? Wars purposefully fomented in poor countries in order to sell weapons, or using them as proxy for political influence (look at the conflicts that happened during the Cold War). There are countless of them in history. ''Liberation'' wars are not because of self-defense, they are related to very different reasons and monetary interest. Stop looking at Western countries with rose colored goggles.
quote:
Europe colonial age was not all wars though, its complex but europe was mostly in the right since it brought more rights to its subjects then the regime before.
im not saying that for some odd reason it passes on 'in the blood' that would be ridicolous. what does one mans action have to do with the charcter of his great-great-grandson?
There are no innocent on ''evil'' side. That's right because -if you exclude fanatics and politicians- there's no truly evil side at all, for reasons already stated.
also most wars ended 'well' Nazi Germany fell, sadly USSR was still around.
So what. In your logic context doesn't matter, you can't have double standards. People in colonialist Europe supported atrocious acts, therefore they should have been exterminated, according to your logic. After all, every time a country does something bad, its people should be exterminated according to your logic, no matter what their stance on it is, even the ones who tried to stop it and failed (because they would still be citizens of the ''evil'' country, weak ones that ''fell to the evil'', and the invading heroes would gain nothing by spending time verifying their action in order to decide whether to let them live or not). Instead ''evil'' won at that time.
Also, please stop using Nazi as a standard example, luckily they are not the standard, more like an exception. And ''wars ended well''. Ok. Take a look at the world now, as ruled by whom you call ''good'' guys. It's all good and well, isn't it? Keep telling that to yourself.
quote:
Untrue. One of the reasons FR has declined is that they nuked the hell out of it. Complex morals is actually something that people find interesting nowadays, AFAIK.
it was nuked the hell because people have not thought how to protect themselves on the long run. if people were not to give gods powers by worshiping them that might have stopped a lot of things. they needed to ask themselves "should i give power to these people?" also the 'worship of mystra' through magic.
if people were to look for independent things to the Weave or Shadow Weave and be completely independent in their craft, or just go to other sciences then the spellplauge wont have almost any effect.
but they didnt, and its what they should do now.
dont worry, I, and my charcter, have a plan to set things straight.
FR was nuked because WotC thought it would increase sales, nothing more. Not only that, but many people felt like the Spellplague and whatever other divine mess or cataclysm that happened with end of 3E/4E was incoherent and disorganic with how the setting works and his history, rather than a consequence of it.
|
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 24 Oct 2014 13:59:09 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 24 Oct 2014 : 10:59:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Xal Valzar
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Xal Valzar
Writers and players need to 'man up' and face the truth that some people need a killing because of thier actions. Thats it.
Orcs, and any sentient creature, is not born one way or the other. If so it is not thinking but acting by instinct. There is no evidence to suggest that Orcs act in ways that are made by instinct. Some Orcs, and indeed many, deserve to die because they have choosen to live by taking from and killing other people. If anyone feels bad for killing an orc that was about to kill or steal from him he does not deserve to live.
If some women or even non-agresive people die that completly fine. supporting evil is as bad as being the one fighting on the field. Any children that die would be on the fualt of the agressor.
people should stop having a weak soul (pusillanimous in Latin, or p-u-s-s -y in its english adaptation(didnt know that fact did u?)) and face up that some people need a killing for their actions and that if other poeple, even babies, need to die because of that then its not thier problem. they did not sign up to be raided and its the agressors fualt for starting the fight.
its the moral idea of altruims that makes others ones responsibilty even when it is potentaily hurtful to ones self. an idea that leads to your death and to seeing your life 2nd place. an idea that is supposed to make u impotent to act and defend your life, one fitting for a slave.
if u want a concrete example look at The Allies vs Nazi Germany in WW2. Or my homeland of Israel today.
The 'cozy' feeling of mercy for your enemies will get my family and loved ones killed both in the past and in the present and future.
You really need to stop bringing real world examples into every discussion. This is a Realms board, and bringing real world stuff in can cause a lot of issues.
then how can u prove something, with non-real world examples? well what are those? or would i make up a scenario where it is clear that everything is the real world example and go agian and that would be better?
secondly lets face it, every fantasy is inspired and guided by real life occurrences.
Refer to in-setting stuff.
It doesn't matter how much fantasy is inspired by real life. Inspired by and identical to are not the same thing; things in the Realms are not necessarily as they are on Earth. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
|
|
|
Aldrick
Senior Scribe
909 Posts |
Posted - 24 Oct 2014 : 10:59:51
|
Here is Xal's logic in action:
* Monsters from the Stonelands attack Cormyr.
* Cormyr responds by using Purple Dragons and War Wizards to fight back the invaders.
- Because Cormyr was attacked, Cormyr now has the right to invade the Stonelands.
* Cormyr launches a massive assault against the Stonelands. They begin to butcher every non-human creature there in a genocidal massacre.
- Because of Cormyr's actions, refugees flee the Stonelands. They seek refuge in the Dales.
- An influential priest of Ilmater persuades Dalelanders that Cormyr is in the wrong, and that it is the right thing to do to protect the refugees fleeing Cormyrian aggression.
- Because the Dales now aid Cormyr's enemy, and Cormyr's enemy is evil, the Dalelands are now also evil.
* Cormyr invades the Dalelands to not only exterminate the refugees that escaped the Stonelands, but to begin killing Dalelanders as well.
* Cormyr begins to execute every male that they encounter, every woman over or under child bearing age, and every woman who can breed is captured.
- The women who can breed are placed into prison camps where they are turned into breeders for their crimes. They are raped by Purple Dragons, and once their children are born they are taken from them and sent back to Cormyr to live with Purple Dragon loyalist families. Those future children are then raised to serve as either future War Wizards or future Purple Dragons.
* Horrified by Cormyr's actions, most of the rest of the Realms decides to offer support to the Dalelands. This makes them the enemy of Cormyr, and individuals who have sided with evil. This justifies Cormyr doing the same thing to them as they did in the Stonelands and in the Dales.
- Cue a war that spans the entire Realms, as Cormyr expands its territory by exterminating local populations, and forcing their women into a breeding program like animals so they can continue to grow their army.
- In the end, Cormyr wins and all regard Cormyr as a heroic and good savior of the Realms which has vanquished evil. |
|
|
|
Gary Dallison
Great Reader
United Kingdom
6351 Posts |
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 24 Oct 2014 : 13:22:33
|
| General statement: Folks, I should prefer to not see scribes putting words in each other's mouths. Let's please stick to what is actually said, and concentrate our responses on that. There is enough to discuss without resorting to things that weren't said. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
Edited by - Wooly Rupert on 24 Oct 2014 13:23:25 |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 24 Oct 2014 : 13:50:42
|
Sometimes, if you try to prove a statement wrong by demonstration by absurd, you have to show consequences of its implications that are extreme or irrational. That might look like putting words in other people's mouth, but in truth it is not.
Also, seeing genocide (of the ''evil'', whatever that means when applied to people who happen to be citizens of a warring country) being described as necessary is quite disturbing -especially when talking about real world-. So is seeing people who -in given situations- are not willing to kill civilians or who are willing to spare lives (which, I guess, covers a big number of individuals), being called ''cowards'' and ''weak souls''. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 24 Oct 2014 13:59:18 |
|
|
|
Lyiat
Seeker
91 Posts |
Posted - 24 Oct 2014 : 14:06:13
|
| Xal makes me want to design an antagonist alchemist/artificer/scientist based around his philosophy and actions. I think it'd be a truely nightmarish enemy to face. |
"Stand and deliver, that my hamster might have a better look at you." ~ Minsc |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 24 Oct 2014 : 14:17:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lyiat
Xal makes me want to design an antagonist alchemist/artificer/scientist based around his philosophy and actions. I think it'd be a truely nightmarish enemy to face.
A little more insane version of him would make for an interesting kind of antagonist. Maybe set on ''purifying the world'' from all the people he perceives as evil and advancing science and knowledge at the same time. One that I would appreciate, as he would be different from the cliché, boring, evil for evil's sake kind of villain that D&D seems to be filled with. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 24 Oct 2014 14:17:33 |
|
|
|
Lyiat
Seeker
91 Posts |
Posted - 24 Oct 2014 : 14:21:43
|
Don't forget the pursuit of the almighty dollar. That absolutely has to be in there.
I think something Xal will have to realize sooner rather than later is that when you go out and say things like, "some people have to die" and "it's ok to kill children when it helps your goal", it not only sounds completely inhumane but outright sociopathic. A rational person wouldn't come to these conclusions.
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
Sometimes, if you try to prove a statement wrong by demonstration by absurd, you have to show consequences of its implications that are extreme or irrational. That might look like putting words in other people's mouth, but in truth it is not.
One more edit: This type of argument is called Reductio ad absurdum, reduction to absurdity. Taking an argument to it's logical extreme to demonstrate how the argument or position of the opponent is illogical, false, or just pointedly absurd. It's been a valid tactic since ancient Greece. Sorry, Wooly, but I've gotta side with Irennan on this one. |
"Stand and deliver, that my hamster might have a better look at you." ~ Minsc |
Edited by - Lyiat on 24 Oct 2014 15:01:09 |
|
|
|
LordofBones
Master of Realmslore
1477 Posts |
Posted - 24 Oct 2014 : 14:58:39
|
| Your theoretical antagonist is missing the ability to stun onlookers by flexing the pecs of the most transcendent body to walk Faerun. |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 24 Oct 2014 : 15:42:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lyiat
One more edit: This type of argument is called Reductio ad absurdum, reduction to absurdity.
Yes, that's what I meant. I directly translated the word from my language, 'cause I couldn't recall its proper name. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
|
|
|
Lyiat
Seeker
91 Posts |
Posted - 24 Oct 2014 : 15:45:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
quote:
Originally posted by Lyiat
One more edit: This type of argument is called Reductio ad absurdum, reduction to absurdity.
Yes, that's what I meant. I directly translated the word from my language, 'cause I couldn't recall its proper name.
I have to admit, that made me chuckle. Cuz it's Latin, and you're from Italia. Does that make me a bad person? |
"Stand and deliver, that my hamster might have a better look at you." ~ Minsc |
|
|
|
Aldrick
Senior Scribe
909 Posts |
Posted - 24 Oct 2014 : 17:01:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
Also, seeing genocide (of the ''evil'', whatever that means when applied to people who happen to be citizens of a warring country) being described as necessary is quite disturbing -especially when talking about real world-. So is seeing people who -in given situations- are not willing to kill civilians or who are willing to spare lives (which, I guess, covers a big number of individuals), being called ''cowards'' and ''weak souls''.
Do not forget the fact that you are not only a coward and a weak soul, you are effectively an enabler. This means you are aiding evil indirectly which makes you fair game for extermination as well.
=============
Wooly -
I am not sure if my post sparked your general statement, but if it did I was relying entirely on what Xal wrote. I was simply demonstrating his philosophy in action.
Xal wrote:
"If anyone feels bad for killing an orc that was about to kill or steal from him he does not deserve to live."
If you feel guilt or remorse over having to kill someone, according to Xal you deserve to die.
"If some women or even non-agresive people die that completly fine. supporting evil is as bad as being the one fighting on the field. Any children that die would be on the fualt of the agressor."
It is acceptable to kill women, children, and non-combatants if they get in the way of your plans. Simply living in an evil society makes you complicit in that societies actions.
"some people need a killing for their actions and that if other poeple, even babies, need to die because of that then its not thier problem."
It is acceptable to kill babies.
"secondly if the orc choose to live his life like that then he would be better of dead to begin with. Hes the one that choose to live under evil, would he have any self esteem he would either rebel, and maybe die, then he would be an ally. however as long as he is there he has no right to his own life."
Re-enforcing a previous point, and expanding upon it here. It is acceptable to kill women, children, and non-combatants. Essentially, the moment you are born and draw your first independent breath, if you do not immediately crawl into the woods and die then you are complicit in that societies actions and you become fair game. You are expected to flee, even if it means it will result in your death, because anything less makes you complicit and therefore fair game.
"the idea of the "peaceful majority" is more fitted to be called the "indiffrent majority". ad if your indiffrent to your life i see no moral problem of killing you to begin with. as i said, life belongs to those who fight for life."
Xal's logic here naturally extends beyond the society in question. If a society is deemed evil (by him), and you do not participate in its eradication then you are part of the "indifferent majority" -- if you are part of this "indifferent majority" then you are fair game for eradication.
This means that any Cormyrian who refused to fight someone attacking their lands, and instead seeks a peaceful solution then he is an enabler. If you enable evil (as he has previously stated) you are as bad as that evil itself. Therefore, all Cormyr would have to do is send word to the Dales that they want their help engaging in genocide in the Stonelands. If the Dalelands refuse they are enablers. If their citizens do not immediately rebel against their leaders, then they are also enablers. Cormyr is therefore justified in genocidal slaughter against the Dalelands for being supporters of evil. The Dalelands do not have to take any actions at all.
As Xal makes clear, he believes that this is the truest expression of good. Anyone who disagrees are weak cowards who would rather see evil enabled rather than defeated. This is his definition of a hero. |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 24 Oct 2014 : 18:50:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lyiat
I have to admit, that made me chuckle. Cuz it's Latin, and you're from Italia. Does that make me a bad person?
Yes, it does
In all honesty, tho, I have to admit that I know nothing about Latin.
quote:
As Xal makes clear, he believes that this is the truest expression of good. Anyone who disagrees are weak cowards who would rather see evil enabled rather than defeated. This is his definition of a hero.
The more he posts, the more I believe that he is a good troll. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 24 Oct 2014 19:30:57 |
|
|
|
TBeholder
Great Reader
2382 Posts |
Posted - 24 Oct 2014 : 19:29:48
|
So, to turn it back from feeding deceased horses to regenerative, but highly flammable creatures and somewhat closer to the problems with rangers...
quote:
Originally posted by Aldrick
Okay, so you encounter a raiding party of a sentient race that are innately evil, and will kill you without hesitation. No moral dilemma there, it is self-defense. Now that you have killed them, you are not going to wonder where they came from? You are just going to sit back, let them continue to breed and build a massive horde to raid and pillage all they can before they are defeated? Or, alternatively, are you going to hunt down where these beings came from and deal with the source of the problem?
If you decide to ignore the threat, and not pursue the source of the problem you find yourself holding the idiot ball. You are just setting yourself up for endless conflict, and ensuring that others continue to suffer. After all, there is no hope of a true peace--they are innately evil and will never change.
If you decide to pursue the source of the problem, then that brings you face-to-face with the moral dilemma. Will you or will you not engage in an act of genocide to end the threat?
You failed to demonstrate how "of a sentient race that are innately evil" part here have any casual relation to the rest at all.
As in, exactly the same can be applied to humans, halflings, elves exactly as well. And in FR this situation quite obviously did happen with humans vs. elves, in both directions. "May we drive the cursed vermin from our blessed land, may they despoil it no longer..." etc.
Which leaves us with what? A really longwinded way to say "Wars of extermination do, indeed, happen, and sometimes may involve beings you would otherwise consider quite decent, because the situation they face significantly differs from answering the question whether they want to participate in a war of extermination or opt for a nice game of chess instead"? Well, duh.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
I think we're always going to have at least two camps of DMs and players: those who play to get away from the complications of the real world, and those who demand that their fantasy settings be believable. The first group is best served by hack and slash, with minimal thought... that's not calling anybody stupid; it's just observing that when you sit down to kill some orcs you wanna kill some orcs; you don't want to sit around debating whether or not they deserve it. They're orcs, end of discussion. The second group is put off by hack and slash... their goal is to make the fantasy as close as possible to reality, with the exception of magic, because that's what makes the setting most believable.
And - speaking of oratory devices used - this one is called "false dichotomy". |
People never wonder How the world goes round -Helloween
And even I make no pretense Of having more than common sense -R.W.Wood
It's not good, Eric. It's a gazebo. -Ed Whitchurch |
|
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 24 Oct 2014 : 21:17:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by TBeholder
And - speaking of oratory devices used - this one is called "false dichotomy".
No it's not.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
I think we're always going to have at least two camps of DMs and players
|
|
|
|
Aldrick
Senior Scribe
909 Posts |
Posted - 25 Oct 2014 : 01:26:27
|
TBeholder -
I was responding directly to Bladewind's assumption that individuals would never be ethically challenged in the way that I outlined in previous posts. He posed a logical way around the problem: Orc Raiding or Hunting Parties would likely range far afield from their main camp because women, children, and non-combatants would slow them down. This seems very logical on the surface, and it feels logical enough that it allows us to avoid the problem. However, I challenged it. I pointed out that if you encountered an Orc Raiding Party, most people are going to question where it came from--they are going to wonder if there are more of them out there. If you encountered one raiding party, there are likely more of them. This means that they have a source. If you are the lord of a land, and you have orc raiders roaming around nearby--you are going to want to know that source. You want to know that source, so you can deal with the threat directly. In finding that source, it brings you back to the problem that I was raising: you have encountered orc women, children, and other non-combatants, now what are you going to do?
If orcs are innately evil, then the only logical conclusion--the only good action--is to kill them all. This means you are putting women and children to the sword--literally. To not do otherwise would be the equivalent of allowing minor demons to roam the countryside. You already know what is going to happen if you do not do it, because they are innately evil. It is not a difficult decision to make, because the decision is already made for you--evil in D&D is a real thing. It is not subjective. If orcs are not evil by nature, then there are other possibilities.
This is a difficult problem, because most people in the audience--aside form Xal, of course--are not going to view the wholesale slaughter of women and children as a good aligned act. They are not going to find it a heroic act, either. Yet, this is exactly what would be expected of Drizzt as a good aligned hero in setting if he encountered orc women and children. Being innately evil, they are monsters, period. It is effectively no different than encountering a weak and minor demon. The way it looks and its relative level of defense is not relevant when you know it is evil by nature.
This brings me back full circle to my original post in this thread. I was sarcastically mocking the reasons for orcs being made innately evil. Orcs are made innately evil to avoid pesky moral questions when it comes to killing them. We would encounter those problems if we were dealing with another race such as humans or elves. However, the assumption being made by game designers is that PC characters and fictional characters are only ever going to encounter male warriors prepared to fight. This brings us to a point Xaeyruudh made.
Xaeyruudh pointed out that there are essentially two camps. One camp is looking to avoid all such problems, and just wants to hack and slash their way through without any questions. The other, the camp I am in, is looking to tell a story in a setting that is internally consistent. For people like myself, whose games are very story oriented, you cannot just throw down an orc raiding party and not think about where they came from, and the consequences for killing them. Whether or not players question where they came from is not relevant, because if they are there then they are there for a reason. I do not throw NPC's out there to be killed just so people can gain XP and loot. If I wanted to enjoy grinding things out, killing things, taking their stuff, and leveling up as a result then there are better games out there than tabletop games. When I sit down at the table, my goal is to tell a collaborative story. For that story to work, we need an internally consistent world. For that world to be internally consistent, it requires orc women, children, and non-combatants. Because evil is a real and tangible thing in the D&D Universe, encountering these individuals--which would be innately evil by their very nature--raises the problems that I outlined.
Ideally, this would not be just a problem for individuals like myself. It would also be a problem for characters in novels, such as Drizzt. Their world needs to be internally consistent as well. This means that if Drizzt engages in a campaign against the Kingdom of Many Arrows, he is inevitably going to face this very situation. At that moment, we are going to have to wonder what he does--will he kill the women, children, and non-combatants, and perhaps alienate the audience (aside from Xal, of course)? Or will he be forced to hold the idiot ball, and let innately evil monsters escape to continue causing problem in the future? |
|
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 25 Oct 2014 : 02:16:37
|
(Edit: this mostly applies to novels, and mostly not to adventures)
I think, as I'm pretty sure has already been stated here (or in a similar thread since this can't be the first time it's ever been brought up), that many readers are going to perceive the murder of defenseless individuals as evil, regardless of the species. Especially because Drizzt. People naturally root for the underdogs, and Drizzt being not-evil creates a phenomenon where people want to see non-evil members of largely-evil societies. Stories set in an unambiguous, uncomplicated, uncaring universe where all members of evil species are evil, everywhere and all the time, would not sell as well and are therefore not a good choice for WotC to make.
If the protagonist spares the women and children, some readers will say "dude, you're an idiot for not killing those orcettes and orclings" but this doesn't really have much weight because it opens the door to sequels.
If, in contrast, every orc the hero ever encounters is slaughtered because it might probably become an enemy some day, many readers will say "dude, that's just not right." This is a much heavier statement due to the still-precarious reputation of D&D in society.
On a personal level, I cannot introduce my date to D&D if every novel she ever picks up is going to include beheading babies and gutting moms. Pretty sure I'm not the only person who would start looking more seriously at playing/writing a different game system.
So regardless of our opinions about the orcish moral compass, it's just not smart for WotC to declare that orcs are irredeemably evil. Opinions can be voiced by individual characters --even gods, though that's pushing the limits-- but it can't be a fact of the setting.
In my opinion. |
Edited by - xaeyruudh on 25 Oct 2014 02:26:38 |
|
|
|
Aldrick
Senior Scribe
909 Posts |
Posted - 25 Oct 2014 : 03:28:12
|
Xaeyruudh -
Exactly. I agree 100%. This is exactly why the "solution" is worse than the problem. The solution to get around any questionable ethical and moral questions of killing sentient beings (male orc raiders) is to make them all irredeemably evil. However, by making orcs irredeemably evil we end up with exactly the problem we've both discussed--which is actually a WORSE problem. |
|
|
|
Xal Valzar
Learned Scribe
Argentina
214 Posts |
Posted - 25 Oct 2014 : 03:29:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lyiat
Xal makes me want to design an antagonist alchemist/artificer/scientist based around his philosophy and actions. I think it'd be a truely nightmarish enemy to face.
oh the poor souls who are the party, they decided to make an enemy out of the most competent man in Toril-Albier and all the Planes.
heck what did they do to piss him off? try to rob him of his stuff? |
Knowledge is Power |
|
|
|
Xal Valzar
Learned Scribe
Argentina
214 Posts |
Posted - 25 Oct 2014 : 03:35:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by Aldrick
Xaeyruudh -
Exactly. I agree 100%. This is exactly why the "solution" is worse than the problem. The solution to get around any questionable ethical and moral questions of killing sentient beings (male orc raiders) is to make them all irredeemably evil. However, by making orcs irredeemably evil we end up with exactly the problem we've both discussed--which is actually a WORSE problem.
no, simply all of you are moral cowards. some people deserve to die. thats it, i assume none of you had ever faced the reality of war or had to kill someone in self defense or make a primitive strike.
however if your life would depend on it you would not do it and would lack the moral courage to defend your life and would loose it.
it would be funny, you can be killed by an drow child from behind with a knife because you were soft and humane. i would laugh at your deaths and probably make jokes at the funeral to send a message across to all else that might be tempted to go the same path. |
Knowledge is Power |
|
|
|
Xal Valzar
Learned Scribe
Argentina
214 Posts |
Posted - 25 Oct 2014 : 03:59:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
quote:
Originally posted by Lyiat
Xal makes me want to design an antagonist alchemist/artificer/scientist based around his philosophy and actions. I think it'd be a truely nightmarish enemy to face.
A little more insane version of him would make for an interesting kind of antagonist. Maybe set on ''purifying the world'' from all the people he perceives as evil and advancing science and knowledge at the same time. One that I would appreciate, as he would be different from the cliché, boring, evil for evil's sake kind of villain that D&D seems to be filled with.
the heck if that were to happen your heros would be evil monsters for letting a situation to do good in the world disrupt. and lets face it, theirs no way you can play him and hed loose. Xal Vazlar doesnt loose. ever.
he has contingency plans upon contingency plans upon bakcup plans.
hes the most respected merchant in all of Faerun, he never lied in his life.
he is sees money where others see nothing.
he never made a venture that did not in triple the original value.
he is a pinnacle of intelligence and of physical prowess.
he finished the induction the method of induction.
he is the chose of both Gond and Wuakeen.
he discovered and uses the most cutting edge technology in Toril.
he reduces archwizards and sages to stumbling idiots on questions of metaphysics.
hes the most beautiful sight you would ever see.seriously he's ripped.
he has no bit of hesitation.
he has enough money to hire an army of mercenaries.
he can invent a new item just to deal with one situation either putting months of minutes to make it work.
he uses magic without the weave.
he can out grapple a giant and if enlarged grapple a dragon and kill it by strangulation with an admantium chain.
he would recruit any man who values their own property to put an end to you and would make the whole world side against you for getting in the way of what is good.
he has no compromise on matters of good and evil.
he defeated the mightiest barbarian in a 1-on-1 duel.
he doesn't have magical weapons, he has technological weapons as part of a deal with Gond.
he has the strongest bond with all his colleges, all of them would risk their life for him.
and most importantly hes an expert at using his opponents strength against them.
he can not contemplate life without honor. (that is something that few can roleplay, most do not even know what honor is. (if you think differently give me a definition of honor), im the only one i know of)
if your up agianst Xal Valzar you are dead, you are more likely to come out alive with the Lady of Pain or Chtuluhu because they dont have a clear motive or any certainty of their morals, he does!
but i guess you would play some caricature of a fat banker with a mustache and a hat that might possibly have a very big nose. or just something else thats not him. if you really want to role play him you need to remember that he can not and will not think of life detached from honor and pride. |
Knowledge is Power |
|
|
|
Xal Valzar
Learned Scribe
Argentina
214 Posts |
Posted - 25 Oct 2014 : 04:13:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
(Edit: this mostly applies to novels, and mostly not to adventures)
I think, as I'm pretty sure has already been stated here (or in a similar thread since this can't be the first time it's ever been brought up), that many readers are going to perceive the murder of defenseless individuals as evil, regardless of the species. Especially because Drizzt. People naturally root for the underdogs, and Drizzt being not-evil creates a phenomenon where people want to see non-evil members of largely-evil societies. Stories set in an unambiguous, uncomplicated, uncaring universe where all members of evil species are evil, everywhere and all the time, would not sell as well and are therefore not a good choice for WotC to make.
If the protagonist spares the women and children, some readers will say "dude, you're an idiot for not killing those orcettes and orclings" but this doesn't really have much weight because it opens the door to sequels.
If, in contrast, every orc the hero ever encounters is slaughtered because it might probably become an enemy some day, many readers will say "dude, that's just not right." This is a much heavier statement due to the still-precarious reputation of D&D in society.
On a personal level, I cannot introduce my date to D&D if every novel she ever picks up is going to include beheading babies and gutting moms. Pretty sure I'm not the only person who would start looking more seriously at playing/writing a different game system.
So regardless of our opinions about the orcish moral compass, it's just not smart for WotC to declare that orcs are irredeemably evil. Opinions can be voiced by individual characters --even gods, though that's pushing the limits-- but it can't be a fact of the setting.
In my opinion.
well your opinion is wrong.
it would be a joke to say that orcs are innate, there being only one orc would blow that away. and how can they take a sophisticated course of action if they were built on instinct.
if someone is too weak of character to understand that there are bad people and that in a matter of life and death you do not take any prisoner or let anyone go free he should not read a book like that.
it would be a sad man who subordinates his vision of a novel for the mentality that is devoid of concept self esteem.
authors should set the record straight and start treating people like they have functioning brains and say "we kill orcs, we kill orcettes and we kill orclings if it gets the job done. because we value our lives." |
Knowledge is Power |
|
|
|
Aldrick
Senior Scribe
909 Posts |
Posted - 25 Oct 2014 : 04:16:46
|
| Xal Valzar do not make assumptions about my life, what I have and have not done, and what I am prepared and not prepared to do. You do not know me. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
The case of the broken Drizzt
Topic Locked
